[ghibbett]

Hi All ,

Maybe I'm going a bit mad, but I've been thinking of selling my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and getting a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 & a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 as replacement.

Am I mental?

[Liquid101]

2 great lenses - but do you have the wide end covered with another quality prime?

I'd certainly miss the sub 30mm end

[Radiohead]

What Liquid said.

I'm firmly of the opinion that for most people, most of the time, a constant f2.8 standard zoom is the most useful lens you can have.

Also, 2 primes at 30/50 makes little sense to me. If you must do it (and I wouldn't) I'd be looking at 30/85. That said, I'd just buy a £50 50/1.8 and keep what you have. You'll lose money selling the 17-55 anyway and I\d lay money on the gap between 17mm and 30mm causing you grief.

[ghibbett]

No I have a 10-22mm too.

I've never been convinced by my 17-55 - I think its down to too high expectations based on it's many rave reviews - especially as I think my 10-22 is easily as sharp. However I've just run a few comparative tests on both and it proved that both zooms were about equal. Still not a patch on a prime...

[Radiohead]

OK - let's approach it a different way. What do you shoot and where is the 17-55 lacking?

[ghibbett]

Hmmm, I think I'm just a little disappointed with the lens. Will most likely keep it as I've taken on board what Radiohead said about it being such a versatile lens.

Will just have to try out someone elses 17-55 one day to see if mines a bad copy, or I'm just being super picky.

Thanks for the replies guys - appreciate your opinions

[GarryF]

Why not post some pics your unhappy with so others can compare?

[allymac123]

My 10-22 is about as sharp as my 17-55.

[SignalMan]

ghibbitt, I have the 17-55, also the 50mm f/1.4 and a 85mm f/1.8, I've been thinking about changing the 17-55 but to be honest it's too good an 'allrounder' but I hear what your saying and agree, however good the lens is IMHO you can't beat a prime and in the studio they're the only option, unless you like big heads on small bodies and stumpy legs

So NO mate your not mad!

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by allymac123

My 10-22 is about as sharp as my 17-55.

I'm not sure why it shouldn't be to be honest.

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by SignalMan

IMHO you can't beat a prime and in the studio they're the only option, unless you like big heads on small bodies and stumpy legs

I assume you mean the effect of using a wide angle lens for portraits. In which case a prime lens would give you exactly the same effect as a zoom lens.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

I assume you mean the effect of using a wide angle lens for portraits. In which case a prime lens would give you exactly the same effect as a zoom lens.

Indeed.

Also worth noting that highly regarded portrait shooters of the likes of Annabel Williams and Brett Harkness generally use a 70-200/2.8 - both in and out of the studio.

[ghibbett]

Originally Posted by GarryF

Why not post some pics your unhappy with so others can compare?

I took a load last night comparing my 10-22 to 17-55. Won't get chance to post them now till tomorrow evening earliest, but will do. Results were *very slightly* in favour of the 17-55.

Originally Posted by allymac123

My 10-22 is about as sharp as my 17-55.

Yeah that's about what I'm finding (as above). I guess that I just thought the 17-55 was a step above the 10-22. Just proves, there's no review like reviewing something yourself!

Originally Posted by SignalMan

ghibbitt, I have the 17-55, also the 50mm f/1.4 and a 85mm f/1.8, I've been thinking about changing the 17-55 but to be honest it's too good an 'allrounder' but I hear what your saying and agree, however good the lens is IMHO you can't beat a prime and in the studio they're the only option, unless you like big heads on small bodies and stumpy legs

So NO mate your not mad!

How do you find your 50 f/1.4?
But cheers, glad to know I'm not alone. Or maybe we're both mad

Originally Posted by Radiohead

Indeed.

Also worth noting that highly regarded portrait shooters of the likes of Annabel Williams and Brett Harkness generally use a 70-200/2.8 - both in and out of the studio.

Hmmm, didnt know that. Interesting point. I do *love* my 70-200 F4L IS. It truely, IMO, is an awesome zoom lens to rival primes for sharpness.

[allymac123]

Originally Posted by ghibbett

especially as I think my 10-22 is easily as sharp.

Originally Posted by allymac123

My 10-22 is about as sharp as my 17-55.

Originally Posted by Radiohead

I'm not sure why it shouldn't be to be honest.

I was just saying that he wasn't alone in his 10-22 being as sharp as his 17-55. He seemed to think that the fact was a negative about the 17-55.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by allymac123

I was just saying that he wasn't alone in his 10-22 being as sharp as his 17-55. He seemed to think that the fact was a negative about the 17-55.

Sorry ally, it wasn't a dig at you at all. Or anyone for that matter!

[stevegreen]

I'm just going to jump in and say that I love my Sigma 30mm f/1.4, it's a cracking lens

..........and now I'm gone

[SignalMan]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

I assume you mean the effect of using a wide angle lens for portraits. In which case a prime lens would give you exactly the same effect as a zoom lens.

We'll I'll bow down to your superior knowledge but on in my very little experience of 'Toggin'.....when you zoom to fill the frame your magnifying the image but if you take the same pickie with a prime lens, by just moving position, your not....clear as mud to me

I'm not knocking the Sigma....Hells Bells, I own one and know just how 'conveniant' it is but for me the prime is more useful.

Radiohead, sorry mate but if anybody wants to use a 'building brick' on the front of their camera in the studio then I for one wont argue with them....but...just because you can doesn't mean you should and if Annebel Williams or Bret Harkness uses a 70-200 for their studio work then it's because they're to bloody tight to pay to go to the gym

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by SignalMan

We'll I'll bow down to your superior knowledge but on in my very little experience of 'Toggin'.....when you zoom to fill the frame your magnifying the image but if you take the same pickie with a prime lens, by just moving position, your not....clear as mud to me

As you say - clear as mud

Originally Posted by SignalMan

Radiohead, sorry mate but if anybody wants to use a 'building brick' on the front of their camera in the studio then I for one wont argue with them....but...just because you can doesn't mean you should and if Annebel Williams or Bret Harkness uses a 70-200 for their studio work then it's because they're to bloody tight to pay to go to the gym

They probably learnt their trade with an RB67 strapped around their necks, so a DSLR with any lens on the front will feel like a feather.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by SignalMan

Radiohead, sorry mate but if anybody wants to use a 'building brick' on the front of their camera in the studio then I for one wont argue with them....but...just because you can doesn't mean you should and if Annebel Williams or Bret Harkness uses a 70-200 for their studio work then it's because they're to bloody tight to pay to go to the gym

[senu]

Interesting thread ..and best kept on topic.

There is no doubting the value of primes but in life, there are always compromises to be made.
I have the 17-55 and 50mm 1.4....both great. I even have the less well admired 17-85..
If I had to have only one for keeps it would be the 17-55..
I think it takes a fair bit of skill to determine which focal lenght is best for a situation in a hurry, as such a lens with more than one focal leght ( ie a WAZ) simply allows you to frame your subject and shoot
However we should remember that shooting styles and subject interests are very indiviual and anyones collection of lenses is almost inevitably a reflection of thier own indiviuality as expressed in thier photography. That indiviuality is not subject to undue scrutiny

[ghibbett]

Some healthy debate here. Appreciate all the opinions.
Going to take some more pics at some point comparing my 17-55, 10-22 and 50 f/1.8 and will post up here.

Any ideas as to what makes a good test? Previously I have been taking pictures of a horizontaly situated magazine with the camera pointing down about 20 degrees at a distance of 2m from the mag. Then viewing a 100% crop and reading the print. But what else can I do?

[stevegreen]

Originally Posted by ghibbett

Any ideas as to what makes a good test? Previously I have been taking pictures of a horizontaly situated magazine with the camera pointing down about 20 degrees at a distance of 2m from the mag. Then viewing a 100% crop and reading the print. But what else can I do?

Stop pixel peeping and get on with proper photography

[allymac123]

Originally Posted by ghibbett

Any ideas as to what makes a good test? Previously I have been taking pictures of a horizontaly situated magazine with the camera pointing down about 20 degrees at a distance of 2m from the mag. Then viewing a 100% crop and reading the print. But what else can I do?

I'm not too sure what you would achieve by doing this. I've already said my 10-22 and 17-55 are pretty similar in sharpness and I would imagine you 50 1.8 would be pretty similar aswell.

I've never really bothered checking how sharp my 50 1.4 is as quite frankly it isn't a major consideration. I use to make sure I never went above ISO 800 or even ISO 400 if I could help it so that my images were noise free but now I realise there's a hell of alot more to a photo than how perfect it is at 100%. Maybe if I can get everything absolutely bang on all the time then I might be more bothered then.

I'm not denying that I adore my newly purchased 50 1.4 but TBH it's quite a different kettle of fish to my 17-55 and I'd never in a million years be content with a 30 1.4 and 50 1.4. I'd far rather just have my 17-55 as it will allow me to capture far more shots than the primes would. I though a 50 1.4 on one body and my 17-55 with 430ex on another was a pretty perfect match. They were both ideal for different shots and I wasn't really particurarly bothered with the slightly sharper image my 50 1.4 may have been giving me (then again it may bit have been any sharper).

[SignalMan]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

Stop pixel peeping and get on with proper photography

Right on man (Bloody hell, that ages me )

Got to agree with senu, "if I had to have only one for keeps it would be the 17-55" BUT for me it's a pickup and shoot kinda thing, where as the prime makes me take more time in composing the shot.

As for, is it as good?....In all my photo's where I have compared the 50mm range on the 17-55 to my 50mm prime, there's no contest, the prime is a clear winner.

Horses for courses

[Zone]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

Stop pixel peeping and get on with proper photography

Excellent advice

[Tobers]

I'd stick with the 17-55 if it was me. With the primes & the 10-22 you'd be changing lenses a lot and the likelihood that you'd miss that really important shot whilst faffing about increases significantly. Plus it's more stuff to carry.

[senu]

Originally Posted by SignalMan

..As for, is it as good?....In all my photo's where I have compared the 50mm range on the 17-55 to my 50mm prime, there's no contest, the prime is a clear winner...

True.. even the 50mm 1.8 is better but as I also have the 17-55 and 50mm 1.4,
It is only by direct critical comparison that the 50mm shines that much better.

It is not in all situations you have the luxury of time to "compose very carefully" and even owning a wide angle Zoom shouldn't stop you from needing to do that. Tobers has hit the nail on the head.. do you want to miss "that shot" because the lens is the "wrong " FL.. and do you want to lug all those primes with you everywhere you go?
As you say .. Horses for courses indeed but I wouldnt sell off an excellent Wide angle Zoom for a few primes and miss a lot of FL .
I also have the Tokina 12-24 , so ideally I could do away ( and I often do) with the 17-55s wide angle as it ( like all lenses) is weakest at the range extremes

[ghibbett]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

Stop pixel peeping and get on with proper photography

Fair comment

However, after having paid £550 for a lens (cheers Kerso), you want to know it's as good as you were expecting... Anyway, I've decided to keep it for the mo. Have a bunch of images planned so will get on with it and get some of them posted soon.

Cheers,

P.S. Just ordered a 50 f/1.4 anyway. I just couldn't help myself
P.P.S. Congrats to Allymac on his 1000th post. OT I know, but

[stevegreen]

The only reason made that comment is that sometimes I feel that people worry too much about lens performance and want it sharp to the n'th degree, when in reality they will probably not print above A3 or will simply resize the picture for web display anyway. For me, the focal length and speed are the first considerations and then the budget will dictate what quality lens you end up buying, then it's down to the photographer to get to know and get the best out of that lens and thats better done in the field as opposed to focussing on test charts. The lenses section over at POTN can sometimes read like a laboratory results forum.........does my head in!

[Tobers]

I'm with you there Steve. The best lens in the world wont help you if your composition sucks (says he who is suffering chronic severe upgradeitis!).